YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Logical Celery
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:37 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Logical Celery »

It's quite weird, but, as far as I have seen from interaction, many vegans reject societal norms as a "reason" or "justification", yet once AY finishes his consistency test he then appeals to this very thing.

Vegans would reject a societal appeal of how it's "normal" to kill animals for food, the fact that it is not unethical, and simply laugh at vegans for being absurd and reject their position. Obviously this is not an argument, and if it were plugged through NTT it would yield the slavery hypothetical for "societal norm".

However, if the person bites the bullet on it, then Ask Yourself (or his cohorts) will have to concede that it is a consistent position, but to dismiss it as absurd (not an argument) because many "sane" people would not be on board with slavery (appeal to the line of reasoning they would supposedly reject).

This ties into what @Red mentions above with subjective moral views, because at this point there isn't anything to discuss. What can he or his followers hope for? That more people agree with him and are persuaded? Is that all?
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by esquizofrenico »

I really don't think that Ask Yourself thinks this is a contradiction. His fight is more politics than it is philosophy. He just wants to move the western societies status quo to an acceptance of vegan ethics. However, his strategy may give unexpected results, lately I see more and more people in the skeptic community (FriendEd is the perfect example), that defend that morality is a purely societal and psychological construction and that nobody bases their morality in reason. There is nothing the Ask Yourself position can do to counter-attack this position, because he basically agrees with it.

The one doubt I have about Ask Yourself is that I have heard him say: "Morality is as objective as any human knowledge can be". That clearly sounds as admitting some kind of moral realism. Does anybody know if he has changed his mind in this opinion and if not what is it that he meant?
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

The one doubt I have about Ask Yourself is that I have heard him say: "Morality is as objective as any human knowledge can be". That clearly sounds as admitting some kind of moral realism. Does anybody know if he has changed his mind in this opinion and if not what is it that he meant?


That's surprisingly interesting, but from the looks of it I don't think this is the case, actually. Look to his most recent video, he attempts to debunk realism with his friend AVI and JHC. They're harping on about a lot of ontological/metaphysical nonsense, and the idea of knowledge/properties (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) existing beyond our conceptual understanding. They're really doing this based off of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition.

If they're talking about robust forms of moral realism that comport to those ideas then I'm not interested, as it does not really apply/relate to what minimalists believe. They did, however, make some interesting remarks to minimalists in their video, so I'll have to re-watch it and make notes.

He also said that he takes claims of objective morality to be claims of ontology, if I'm not mistaken, but I'll have to time-stamp the exact point in which he states this. It really shows how he builds his dichotomous black and white view splendidly.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

esquizofrenico wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:24 pm The one doubt I have about Ask Yourself is that I have heard him say: "Morality is as objective as any human knowledge can be". That clearly sounds as admitting some kind of moral realism. Does anybody know if he has changed his mind in this opinion and if not what is it that he meant?
He denies the reality of mathematics/logic as well, apparently.

Check out this thread, starting from this post on: viewtopic.php?p=39981#p39981
(It's discussed in the next three or so posts)
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

@brimstoneSalad

I forgot to ask you this, but I thought it would be somewhat relevant/important considering AY (and his cohorts) commit this more recently:

In terms of a minimal moral realist's position, it doesn't actually state what you "should" do, nor what is good/bad, rather it just reveals the *right* moral action, correct? Kinda like with math, the right answer is available.

From what I've seen, I think they try to nip at any word usage (like bad/good or ought) and attack it as if it is a claim of moral ontology/property that exists independently of mind in the natural world etc. They think these kinds of propositions are what is considered to be "objective/bad", I haven't seen them heed any attention towards the notion of a correct/right moral action being taken. A lot of the opponents that they criticize/mock are the type that say pain is an objective thing, therefore it's bad etc. They believe it is deriving an ought from an is, the same kind of criticism they extended to Sam if I'm not mistaken about his argument for moral realism. They believe he's making this basic mistake.

If they commit these accusations against minimal moral realism are they just flat out straw-manning the position? It doesn't tell you what you ought to do, nor what is good/bad. If someone made those decisions it'd be mind-dependent choices, but the objectivity of morality remains in what the determining correct moral action is, no?

Just want to get some clarification on this because I may relay this message to some of his followers as a better means to clear up confusion. They already hold to the position that morality must be logically consistent + non-arbitrary, and it must deal with values of beings. That wasn't too controversial or hard, nor was my explanation behind the process of elimination for ethical theories that are incoherent in reference to those axioms as an objective standard. The confusion lies when they take the correct determined moral action as a proposition of something that is "good/bad" or as an "ought", they usually trip up on this.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or missing something.
Last edited by Frank Quasar on Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwV2K9Am1CY -- AY's video, some interesting notes from AY's little segment where he talks. You can watch the rest, but these are the timestamps to the important things that I referenced in this thread. Feel free to watch so you can represent his position charitably, better than me if I may have slipped up slightly.

11:20 - 16:50 is interesting. This is the part where I was talking about his affirmation of "morality is objective" (12:09) to be a "strong" claim, one that is a claim of ontology. He rejects other definitions, as he mentioned Philo, to be sophistry. The kind of definition of morality that Philo uses which proclaims morality to be universal, or something. Could you link that here?

Just a note: This struck me to be weird, because he gets rather butt-hurt when people reject his definition of "murder" to be far-reaching in contrast to the standard definition of murder that is commonly used. He's doing something similar here and refusing to acknowledge the other existing definitions that people use.

Oh, and he rambles on about "objective moral oughts", and the universe having a mind with "oughts in it", lmao. Regardless though, he's trying to tie realism from the Stanford definition as follows:
Generic Realism:
a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone's beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.
^ From this definition I think he's using it against the moral realists who he believes to be making strong claims/deep claims. The "conceptual schemes" caveat is important because he's referring to it as something beyond one's conceptual scheme, and he believes it to be inherently flawed because in order to justify it you would have to do so from within your conceptual scheme. It's circular.

15:53 -- This is where he talks about how the distinction between minimal moral realists VS robust moral realists. He doesn't think it captures something that important because he believes the minimal realists can still slip in a robust moral claim via the incapability of defining "truth". Is this "truth" a deep claim? One beyond conceptual scheme? Or is it a shallow claim, one that comports with respect to your axioms? He said it does depend on these, he is definitely not on board with robust moral realism because it adheres to the hard deep claim, but with minimal realism it depends on whether or not it is deep/shallow. With shallow I think he could be on board, who knows.

25:12 -- AVI thinks there's like an overlap between a minimal moral realist and a non-cognitivist because when minimal moral realists reject non-cogntivism in respect to moral statement (true/false) it's a rejection on the basis of a "deep" claim. The kind of deep claim that is beyond axioms, or something, but then the minimal moral realist will say that it is true with respect to our axioms. AVI is trying to point out that a minimal non-cognitivist can do the same thing when they proclaim that moral statements do not report true/falsity beyond our axioms, but within our axioms they do. Essentially, if a robust/minimal realists can make this split, why can't the non-cognitivists? That's what he is trying to get at.

26:30 and onwards is where they start delving more into it, just a couple of minutes for other types of reductions. This would apply to the moderator friend of theirs (the moral realist one). Essentially, they think if you press a moral realist hard enough on their meaning of truth they will then split into two different boot camps. The kind that mean truth with respect to axioms, as discussed, and the other types that engage in "magical" thinking, as AY puts it.

What do you think? I believe you're on board with the shallow claim, the kind of claim according to his view from what he understands. I might try to make note of other things that I hear from the video another time, but this little segment caught my interest. I'll probably try to keep an update of this some other time, if you're going to watch it I think it might be interesting for you.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:15 am In terms of a minimal moral realist's position, it doesn't actually state what you "should" do, nor what is good/bad, rather it just reveals the *right* moral action, correct? Kinda like with math, the right answer is available.
That's one interpretation. What you're asking about is binding force of morality.

Does morality tell you what you should do IF you want to be a good person?
Or does it tell you what you should do, period, because you should want to be a good person?

Minimal realism is agnostic to that question.

I think the latter (that you also should want to be a good person) is substantively true through teleology and the nature of mind, but that's a more complicated discussion and is beyond the scope of minimal realism alone.

If they might be getting at that as the crux of their concerns, then what they're doing is very much like what anti-evolution creationists are doing when they argue against evolution by asking about the big bang or abiogenesis. Bringing up the big bang or even abiogenesis is beyond the point of evolution, and saying that evolution doesn't answer that is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory which deals with the evolution of life forms.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:15 amFrom what I've seen, I think they try to nip at any word usage (like bad/good or ought) and attack it as if it is a claim of moral ontology/property that exists independently of mind in the natural world etc.
They want to redefine "ontological" as dealing strictly with a natural existence of a unique physical substance of some kind (like sin that looks like some kind of ghostbusters slime).

Human Garbage makes that mistake in this thread:
viewtopic.php?t=4090

Ontology deals with much broader categories of being, including abstracts and universals. You don't have to be on the extreme side of platonic realism to recognize those exist in some meaningful way.

What Isaac and company are trying to assert is apparently some kind of extremist nominalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
In metaphysics, nominalism is a philosophical view which denies the existence of universals and abstract objects, but affirms the existence of general or abstract terms and predicates.[1] There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals – things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects – objects that do not exist in space and time.[2]
How does a nominalist deal with evolution? What about gravity? Call them not real? Do we reject the reality of any emergent force despite it acting upon reality in a very obvious way?
It's all kind of silly, none of this radical skepticism about reality stands up well or makes the term "exist" meaningful. What most of us are concerned about with something existing is something we can name and identify/understand in some way that affects us.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:15 amA lot of the opponents that they criticize/mock are the type that say pain is an objective thing, therefore it's bad etc.
Well, those are bad arguments. I don't think hedonism works. Something being painful in itself (firing certain nerves) doesn't seem to relate directly to morality. Why not be concerned about any other arbitrary nerve firing?

Preference based systems can be argued for much more easily without any arbitrary appeal for concern with a specific category of experience.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:15 amIf they commit these accusations against minimal moral realism are they just flat out straw-manning the position?
Yes.
Minimal realism may or may not be hedonistic, preference based, etc.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:15 amIt doesn't tell you what you ought to do, nor what is good/bad.
Well it says what is morally good or morally bad.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:15 amThey already hold to the position that morality must be logically consistent + non-arbitrary, and it must deal with values of beings. That wasn't too controversial or hard, nor was my explanation behind the process of elimination for ethical theories that are incoherent in reference to those axioms as an objective standard.
That's great, sounds like you got them to realism.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:15 amThe confusion lies when they take the correct determined moral action as a proposition of something that is "good/bad" or as an "ought", they usually trip up on this.
Right, that's just not an essential part of minimal realism.
It would be "morally good" or "morally bad", but as to a general "good/bad" maybe not. When we talk about morally good we're just talking about what comports with correct moral theory. Just saying "good/bad" implies that, but could also apply to non-moral things like "tastes good" "smells bad" etc. so while we may imply moral weight in some statements of good/bad, there are cases where that's irrelevant to morality.
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

Do you have any good reading material/links that I could look into in order to better understand moral realism/misconceptions about this position? I've read the Lesswrong article, the Philo Wiki, the wiki entry on moral realism and the threads on this forum.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Frank Quasar wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:11 pm Do you have any good reading material/links that I could look into in order to better understand moral realism/misconceptions about this position? I've read the Lesswrong article, the Philo Wiki, the wiki entry on moral realism and the threads on this forum.
I'm afraid that's all I know of. Academic sources don't seem to bother addressing the skeptic community straw man, if they even know about it.
You could read more on specific moral theories and the arguments for them, but that would be an exponentially larger amount of material and it probably wouldn't do much to discuss the colloquial straw man from the theists/skeptics.

Kind of like how there used to not be many resources arguing for evolution against creationist straw men (at least since the time of Darwin when it first came to prominence) before talk origins and why evolution is true.
Biologists frequently ignore or roll their eyes at it and don't bother because it's annoying and frustrating. Most scientists aren't science communicators, the most you'll usually get is a professor just teaching evolution in a classroom and not addressing creationist arguments because they're so obviously wrong if you just learn the subject material... which unfortunately only works if you're taking a class (if even that).
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

Ah, okay. Well, I'll just try to look up some material on the arguments for moral universalism, and general arguments for minimal moral realism.

What do you think of my second post where I briefly go over some extra material from AY's latest video on realism? The time-stamps are there in case you want to skip to his own words, but essentially that was only 30 mins of content. I can only imagine what more nonsense there is beyond this mark.

Do you have any thoughts on ethical intuitionism?
Post Reply